View Full Version : Required reading for Liberals
ColonelKurtz
02-07-2006, 08:48 AM
This dude must be reading my postings:
mash here (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/02/07/185446.html)
...but he says it so much better than me...;)
fernandomike
02-07-2006, 10:10 AM
This dude must be reading my postings:
mash here (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/02/07/185446.html)
...but he says it so much better than me...;)
I will not allow the fact that you and Mr. Sowell are in agreement in any way detract from his otherwise towering intellect. :)
The problem with the column is that he makes no mention of FISA which allows the government to tap terrorists without court order for up to three days. Lindsey Graham and other Republicans are beginning to express some concerns about the program which Graham admits has "no legal basis" to operate outside of FISA. That is the problem with the Bush administration's argument. They say that either we do things their way or be blown away. A lot of people don't see it that way explaining that retroactive warrants would provide very little obstruction while maintaining some degree of judicial review. The FISA set-up is speedy, consitutional, and effective. This begs the question, why did the Bush administration, under the cover of darkness, need to circumvent a system specifically established for terrorist surveillance?
JerryBeeds
02-07-2006, 10:17 AM
Lindsey Graham is no conservative. He's in big trouble in SC. If he wins in the primaries, I'd be surprised. He never misses an oppurtunity to take a shot at the President. His participation in the "Gang of 14" really hurt him back home. If Thomas Ravenal even runs a semi-competent campaign in the primaries, we here in SC won't have to put up with "Lispy" Graham's waffling anymore.
fernandomike
02-07-2006, 10:26 AM
Lindsey Graham is no conservative. He's in big trouble in SC. If he wins in the primaries, I'd be surprised. He never misses an oppurtunity to take a shot at the President. His participation in the "Gang of 14" really hurt him back home. If Thomas Ravenal even runs a semi-competent campaign in the primaries, we here in SC won't have to put up with "Lispy" Graham's waffling anymore.
He's clearly to the right of me and I am smack dead in the center. :)
supergenius
02-07-2006, 10:28 AM
He's clearly to the right of me and I am smack dead in the center. :)
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Nando, you owe me one keyboard! That was funny. :D
RTR
uscrebel
02-07-2006, 10:36 AM
Lindsey Graham is no conservative. He's in big trouble in SC. If he wins in the primaries, I'd be surprised. He never misses an oppurtunity to take a shot at the President. His participation in the "Gang of 14" really hurt him back home. If Thomas Ravenal even runs a semi-competent campaign in the primaries, we here in SC won't have to put up with "Lispy" Graham's waffling anymore.
As I understand it, you guys are poised to secede again anyway. South Carolina has apparently become the model state for the far, far right. My recommendation is that you save money by not actually holding an election and just wait for these guys to set up shop.
Apparently, they wish not only to prevent Gay Marriage, but are terribly concerned about an apparent epidemic of sodomy...who knew?
My only request is that when you guys hand over the keys, that you be sure that Myrtle Beach and Pawley's Island are not included in the deal. I don't mind them getting Greenville because Bob Jones has pretty much ruined it already. Losing Lake Murray will hurt a bit, but we'll just have to find other places to get drunk and drive our jet skis.
Oh yeah. Maybe exempt the Hilton Head area as well. I know Rabidcock will just get into a passle of trouble with the new sheriff if he is left to his own resources. I do worry about that man....
Exodous (http://christianexodus.org/)
Article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38571)
JerryBeeds
02-07-2006, 10:53 AM
Just like Cali is the state for the far, far left. Just because we disagree doesn't mean you have to portray me as some kind of Branch Davidian. I've never heard of those people and am not all that religous. And we all know there have never been any weirdos in California. :rolleyes: Maybe I'll lump you in with Jim Jones. The People's Temple was located in San Francisco before they moved to Guyana.
uscrebel
02-07-2006, 11:35 AM
Just like Cali is the state for the far, far left. Just because we disagree doesn't mean you have to portray me as some kind of Branch Davidian. I've never heard of those people and am not all that religous. And we all know there have never been any weirdos in California. :rolleyes: Maybe I'll lump you in with Jim Jones. The People's Temple was located in San Francisco before they moved to Guyana.
Beedsie.
I did not mean YOU.
Sometimes trying to be clever backfires on me and I end up being an a$$hole instead.
My apologies not only to you, but to the other Gamecocks and Carolinians. Please remember that most of my extended family is in Richland, Union, Georgetown, and Horry Counties.
Again, I value you and this forum too much to spoil it with a thoughtless remark.
USCREB
JerryBeeds
02-07-2006, 11:41 AM
Beedsie.
I did not mean YOU.
Sometimes trying to be clever backfires on me and I end up being an a$$hole instead.
My apologies not only to you, but to the other Gamecocks and Carolinians. Please remember that most of my extended family is in Richland, Union, Georgetown, and Horry Counties.
Again, I value you and this forum too much to spoil it with a thoughtless remark.
USCREB
No problem. :) I probably over-reacted anyway. ;)
Lindsey Graham is no conservative. He's in big trouble in SC. If he wins in the primaries, I'd be surprised. He never misses an oppurtunity to take a shot at the President. His participation in the "Gang of 14" really hurt him back home. If Thomas Ravenal even runs a semi-competent campaign in the primaries, we here in SC won't have to put up with "Lispy" Graham's waffling anymore.
If Beeds doesn't like him I may have to consider voting for him (again), :)
JerryBeeds
02-07-2006, 11:44 AM
If Beeds doesn't like him I may have to consider voting for him (again), :)
The democrats probably will save his seat. I've heard that many democrats in SC realize that Lindsey is as close to a democrat as they are going to get. Many will cross party lines to vote for him in the primaries.
First off, Pawleys has to stay in the U.S. b/c that is the one place in S.C. I have to visit, but the rest of Georgetown County is an intellectual wasteland so whoever wants it can have it, but yeah, if this state gets anymore to the right, it'll have to secede, the next thing to go will be alcohol and topless women, and that is I state I'm not living in....
The democrats probably will save his seat. I've heard that many democrats in SC realize that Lindsey is as close to a democrat as they are going to get. Many will cross party lines to vote for him in the primaries.
There are democrats in SC?
JerryBeeds
02-07-2006, 11:48 AM
There are democrats in SC?
In Richland, Berkely, and Jasper counties, but thats about it. It's definately a 65/35 state in favor of the GOP.
all kidding aside for a second, Berkely county is democrat? I have family in Moncks Corner and Jamestown, and neither town strike me as "democrat", but then I'm not from there so you might be more informed then me, that is suprising to me. Also, where is Jasper county (i.e. what towns, etc. are around it)? Richland County is no suprise, just as charleston county wouldn' suprise me. BTW, if you look @ Georgetown County voting, it is a complete wildcard, you can't call it either way, and it's been this way historically as well, I think it's neat, but it's a weird place to live....
ColonelKurtz
02-07-2006, 01:07 PM
I will not allow the fact that you and Mr. Sowell are in agreement in any way detract from his otherwise towering intellect. :)
The problem with the column is that he makes no mention of FISA which allows the government to tap terrorists without court order for up to three days. Lindsey Graham and other Republicans are beginning to express some concerns about the program which Graham admits has "no legal basis" to operate outside of FISA. That is the problem with the Bush administration's argument. They say that either we do things their way or be blown away. A lot of people don't see it that way explaining that retroactive warrants would provide very little obstruction while maintaining some degree of judicial review. The FISA set-up is speedy, consitutional, and effective. This begs the question, why did the Bush administration, under the cover of darkness, need to circumvent a system specifically established for terrorist surveillance?
Tell you what, when those plotting against our Nation issue press releases of the date and time of their intended action, your argument will have relevance. Last time I looked, Graham wasn't the President or the Attorney General, nor did he possess the authority to issue an Executive Order with which to negate the need to worry with going through some mechanism designed to protect the legitimate rights of US Citizens.
Since NOBODY has produced one iota of evidence that ANY intel has occurred that wasn't targeted upon NON US citizens of Arab descent communicating with OTHER ARABS outside of the US, Graham and the others are going to be made to look like total retards when all is said and done.
It's funny as hell that the anti W forces want to become strict interpreters of the Constitution ONLY when it suits THEIR agenda, not that they actually have one outside of trying to find anything to smear the President with.
fernandomike
02-07-2006, 01:54 PM
Tell you what, when those plotting against our Nation issue press releases of the date and time of their intended action, your argument will have relevance. Last time I looked, Graham wasn't the President or the Attorney General, nor did he possess the authority to issue an Executive Order with which to negate the need to worry with going through some mechanism designed to protect the legitimate rights of US Citizens.
Since NOBODY has produced one iota of evidence that ANY intel has occurred that wasn't targeted upon NON US citizens of Arab descent communicating with OTHER ARABS outside of the US, Graham and the others are going to be made to look like total retards when all is said and done.
It's funny as hell that the anti W forces want to become strict interpreters of the Constitution ONLY when it suits THEIR agenda, not that they actually have one outside of trying to find anything to smear the President with.
Once again, you have failed to make even a semblance of an argument regarding the issue. What I spoke of was FISA and my thoughts that it provides the necessary elements needed for our protection from terrorists. Your response was not even remotely applicable. What the hell does the "date and time of their intended action" have anything to do with this since the government can tap immediately and seek approval later? Let me make this clear to you, I have no problem with FISA. It employs the checks on executive power that I have voiced so much concern about while maintaining our readiness to handle critical situations by conducting needed surveillance. What I want to know from you is why is FISA not effective? Just like in your initial scenario, I imagine that you will again employ your favorite tactic of reducing the argument to the absurb. You'll probably quip that leftists like myself just want to sign the terrorists up for free lunch or financial aid. What I doubt you'll do is truthfully answer the question at hand.
That is the debate, Colonel, not whether or not we want to catch terrorists!
As for your final paragraph, you know that works both ways. Isn't it also funny that some who consider themselves strict interpreters of the Constitution toss it out the window when it doesn't fit their agenda? I don't know what is guiding this administration, but it damn sure ain't the Constitution.
ColonelKurtz
02-07-2006, 06:13 PM
Once again, you have failed to make even a semblance of an argument regarding the issue. What I spoke of was FISA and my thoughts that it provides the necessary elements needed for our protection from terrorists. Your response was not even remotely applicable. What the hell does the "date and time of their intended action" have anything to do with this since the government can tap immediately and seek approval later? Let me make this clear to you, I have no problem with FISA. It employs the checks on executive power that I have voiced so much concern about while maintaining our readiness to handle critical situations by conducting needed surveillance. What I want to know from you is why is FISA not effective? Just like in your initial scenario, I imagine that you will again employ your favorite tactic of reducing the argument to the absurb. You'll probably quip that leftists like myself just want to sign the terrorists up for free lunch or financial aid. What I doubt you'll do is truthfully answer the question at hand.
That is the debate, Colonel, not whether or not we want to catch terrorists!
As for your final paragraph, you know that works both ways. Isn't it also funny that some who consider themselves strict interpreters of the Constitution toss it out the window when it doesn't fit their agenda? I don't know what is guiding this administration, but it damn sure ain't the Constitution.
Sowell didn't mention FISA in his article because it wasn't pertinent to his subject, and it was his treatment of that subject which I sought to share. Since you brought it up and incorrectly cited 3 days before FISA provisions are applicable (it is up to 1 Year when intel is conducted vs. foreign agents ourside of the US), I did take some 'liberty' with my reply. :D
Fact is, W can simply eliminate the need for FISA if he so desires and that is what Graham & some others evidently fear, for so far as I'm aware, W didn't cancel the Clinton Executive order placing the US in a State of Emergency right after the bombing of the US Cole. If it is still in effect, then W can indeed order the Intel services to do just about whatever he wants them to do and under the SofE provisions, nobody can do a thing about it.
cocky4ever
02-07-2006, 08:02 PM
If it is still in effect, then W can indeed order the Intel services to do just about whatever he wants them to do and under the SofE provisions, nobody can do a thing about it.
Ummmm..I think thats what has some of us worried. This administration has CONSTANTLY strengthened the power of the executive branch and bent the rules to make them allow whatever they want to do.
fernandomike
02-07-2006, 09:11 PM
Sowell didn't mention FISA in his article because it wasn't pertinent to his subject, and it was his treatment of that subject which I sought to share. Since you brought it up and incorrectly cited 3 days before FISA provisions are applicable (it is up to 1 Year when intel is conducted vs. foreign agents ourside of the US), I did take some 'liberty' with my reply. :D
Fact is, W can simply eliminate the need for FISA if he so desires and that is what Graham & some others evidently fear, for so far as I'm aware, W didn't cancel the Clinton Executive order placing the US in a State of Emergency right after the bombing of the US Cole. If it is still in effect, then W can indeed order the Intel services to do just about whatever he wants them to do and under the SofE provisions, nobody can do a thing about it.
FISA isn't pertinent to the discussion? That's ridiculous and you know it. Also, you predictably failed to answer my question instead opting to delve into some odd conditional speculation based on an executive order of a previous president. I asked you why there was a need to side-step FISA and you give me another possible out from it. Disappointing, but TYPICAL.
supergenius
02-07-2006, 09:19 PM
FISA isn't pertinent to the discussion? That's ridiculous and you know it. Also, you predictably failed to answer my question instead opting to delve into some odd conditional speculation based on an executive order of a previous president. I asked you why there was a need to side-step FISA and you give me another possible out from it. Disappointing, but TYPICAL.
Colonel wins this one!
RTR
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.